New Giant, expensive apartments. Why? (Los Angeles: section 8, rent, tenant)

[msgsing]

Rich and poor. That dynamic never changes. There's always a market for upscale apartments. Supply and demand.

[JJonesIII]

Originally Posted by DabOnEm

How you get middle class nicer units is by re-modeling an old apartment building. Now this is displacement and the true form of gentrification many talk about. It is why EVERY multi-family building needs a percentage to be low-income housing (either a new building or remodeled one).

Why does there have to be a need at all to control the market (which is what you're implying)?

[bad debt]

Following up on my previous post. The image below is from Kidder Mathews Q2 2019 Los Angeles Multifamily report.



That's your answer. Until Vacancy starts to trend upwards rent will continue to rise.

[aslowdodge]

Originally Posted by DabOnEm

How you get middle class nicer units is by re-modeling an old apartment building. Now this is displacement and the true form of gentrification many talk about. It is why EVERY multi-family building needs a percentage to be low-income housing (either a new building or remodeled one).

So the mom and pop landlord who own a triplex with a fair market rent of 2000 for each unit needs to drop one of the units to 1000 for the low income tenant?
So then a normal person like yourself who wants to rent on of the other units can pay 2500 , 500 over market . Is that fair to you? As an owner I am going to shift the cost over to the other tenants or mAybe just not take care of the place as it should.

On another post you mention getting a new place yourself. How about if there is a special fee for people like you, say 20 percent of the purchase price that you pay into a fund that is then used to help to help low income people buy a home for themselves to fight off the rising prices due to buyers like yourself who may want to improve the home they buy And increase it’s value causing gentrification.

[bad debt]

Originally Posted by DabOnEm

How you get middle class nicer units is by re-modeling an old apartment building. Now this is displacement and the true form of gentrification many talk about. It is why EVERY multi-family building needs a percentage to be low-income housing (either a new building or remodeled one).

Why? What if I don't want to live in a building with low-income residents?

[DabOnEm]

Originally Posted by JJonesIII

Why does there have to be a need at all to control the market (which is what you're implying)?

It's not controlling the market. It's more making sure those who help run the market (literally) don't have to commute 3 hours or room with 4 other people in a 2 bedroom.

Originally Posted by aslowdodge

So the mom and pop landlord who own a triplex with a fair market rent of 2000 for each unit needs to drop one of the units to 1000 for the low income tenant?
So then a normal person like yourself who wants to rent on of the other units can pay 2500 , 500 over market . Is that fair to you? As an owner I am going to shift the cost over to the other tenants or mAybe just not take care of the place as it should.
On another post you mention getting a new place yourself. How about if there is a special fee for people like you, say 20 percent of the purchase price that you pay into a fund that is then used to help to help low income people buy a home for themselves to fight off the rising prices due to buyers like yourself who may want to improve the home they buy And increase it’s value causing gentrification.

An older triplex is one thing, but these mid/high-rises with 50+ units can certainly have some that's low income. If a building has 50 units and 5 are low-income, the costs put on to other tenants will not be too drastic. Also if there's say a smaller 15-20 unit older building that's bought and the residents are forced to vacate, once renovations are done there should be at least 2 units available for low-income residents who qualify (10%). In high cost areas like Coastal California, it's certainly needed if there's still much demand for low-wage jobs.

For your second paragraph, well we first have to build more housing to implement this (and they won't be single story either).

Originally Posted by bad debt

Why? What if I don't want to live in a building with low-income residents?

Because the people serving you food or cleaning your office building deserve a place to stay too. NYC does this very well so I'm not sure why it wouldn't work in LA. And it's not like the low-income units have all the bells and whistles either. At least in NYC, they usual have just the basic finishes and don't receive the top of the line things the units going for market rate get. This helps costs a little.

[bad debt]

Originally Posted by DabOnEm

It's not controlling the market. It's more making sure those who help run the market (literally) don't have to commute 3 hours or room with 4 other people in a 2 bedroom.

No, it's absolutely controlling the market. If people don't want to commute 3 hours or room with 4 other people don't want to, they don't have to. They can go live somewhere else. They can get a different job. They can get a second job.

Originally Posted by DabOnEm

An older triplex is one thing, but these mid/high-rises with 50+ units can certainly have some that's low income. If a building has 50 units and 5 are low-income, the costs put on to other tenants will not be too drastic. Also if there's say a smaller 15-20 unit older building that's bought and the residents are forced to vacate, once renovations are done there should be at least 2 units available for low-income residents who qualify (10%). In high cost areas like Coastal California, it's certainly needed if there's still much demand for low-wage jobs.

For your second paragraph, well we first have to build more housing to implement this (and they won't be single story either).


Because the people serving you food or cleaning your office building deserve a place to stay too. NYC does this very well so I'm not sure why it wouldn't work in LA. And it's not like the low-income units have all the bells and whistles either. At least in NYC, they usual have just the basic finishes and don't receive the top of the line things the units going for market rate get. This helps costs a little.

NYC does NOT do this very well, in fact it's in complete crisis. Why are you lying? NYCHA is literally on the verge of receivership from HUD, has 32 BILLION dollars in deferred repairs and maintenance, was brought to trial in 2016 for mismanagement, fraud, and health & safety cover ups. You can keep that garbage out of LA. Thanks.

[DabOnEm]

Originally Posted by bad debt

No, it's absolutely controlling the market. If people don't want to commute 3 hours or room with 4 other people don't want to, they don't have to. They can go live somewhere else. They can get a different job. They can get a second job.

And what's going to happen to LA if the service industry workers start doing this? The restaurants, bars, retail stores, etc., are going to have to charge more because a higher hourly wage is needed to staff the business.

Besides, people are already doing those things (rooming with multiple people; long commutes) and are barely getting by. All you'll do is clog the freeways more and increase parking issues.

NYC does NOT do this very well, in fact it's in complete crisis. Why are you lying? NYCHA is literally on the verge of receivership from HUD, has 32 BILLION dollars in deferred repairs and maintenance, was brought to trial in 2016 for mismanagement, fraud, and health & safety cover ups. You can keep that garbage out of LA. Thanks.

So are you saying that the LA housing authority is better than NYC's? And who has the worse homeless issue, especially when it comes to families? My point is, NYC does a much better job with having available affordable housing than LA, which is absolutely true. Their maintenance/repair issues are separate.

[NJ Brazen_3133]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

What you're not getting:

--New housing is always more expensive than existing housing stock.
--Poor and middle class people almost never buy or rent new housing.
--If you don't build new, expensive, housing, then the upper middle class and rich will compete with the poor and middle class for the existing housing stock--and they will outbid them (i.e. rents and home prices go up.) This has already happened to a large extent over the last 40 years.
--Not enough housing being built over the last 40 years has meant that many formerly working class neighborhoods are now inhabited by the upper middle class and rich.
--It's going to take A LOT MORE building to catch up with what hasn't been built over the last 40 years if we want home prices and rents to be affordable.
--The traffic problem is real and has been used to justify not building more housing. Problem is, in many cases, it just forced people farther away from job centers, which means people commuted long distances on freeways (i.e. used the freeways more than they would have if more housing had been built closer to job centers).
--What L.A. really needs is a comprehensive subway or other mass transit system. That's being done to some extent, but, of course, should've been done a long time ago.

The upper middle class and rich will not put up their previous homes at affordable prices for the poor and middle class to buy up anyways. Either they will hold onto it, and charge high rents, or sell to other upper middle class and higher at higher price than prior.

[Texamichiforniasota]

Originally Posted by NJ Brazen_3133

The upper middle class and rich will not put up their previous homes at affordable prices for the poor and middle class to buy up anyways. Either they will hold onto it, and charge high rents, or sell to other upper middle class and higher at higher price than prior.

That is true as long as a neighborhood is not declining. By declining I mean increased crime, worse schools, and worse maintained homes. This has happened to neighborhoods all over the country, including LA. Pretty much all of South LA used to be solid middle class. Some areas were even wealthy (West Adams). What were once new, upper-middle class areas, declined and became more affordable. If you feel like you have to bail before your home takes an even greater loss, you will sell at a loss.